Mrs Penelope Archer v Starick Services Incorporated Summary

[2013] FWC 6637

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Mrs Penelope Archer
v
Starick Services Incorporated
(C2013/5201)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 5 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] On 18 July 2013, Mrs Penelope Archer (Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a general protections dispute in which she alleged that she had been dismissed in contravention of Part 3-1 General Protections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.365 of the FW Act.

[3] Mrs Archer alleges that she was dismissed in contravention of Part 3-1 of the FW Act by Starick Services Incorporated (Employer).

[4] On 7 August 2013, I listed a conference in accordance with s.368 of the FW Act for 27 August 2013.

[5] On 12 August 2013, the Employer provided a response to Mrs Archer’s application. The Employer advised that it was not a constitutional trading organisation and not subject to the provisions of the FW Act.

[6] The Applicant was advised of the Employer’s jurisdictional objection and invited to make a submission as to why she was covered by Part 3-1 of the FW Act. On 23 August 2013, Mrs Archer provided a brief response which set out advice she has received from a union representative.

[7] The conference proceeded on 27 August 2013. The Applicant attended. The Employer previously advised that it could not attend but provided further information on why it was not subject to the provisions of the FW Act. I provided a copy of this information to the Applicant at the conference.

[8] At the conclusion of the conference, I advised the Applicant that I would again correspond with her and invite her to make a further submission as to why she was covered by Part 3-1 of the FW Act.

[9] On 27 August 2013, by correspondence, I invited the Applicant to make a more detailed submission regarding the Employer’s jurisdictional objection. I advised the Applicant that should I not receive a submission by 4:00 pm on 3 September 2013, I would dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction. The Commission did not receive a submission from the Applicant.

[10] For the above reasons, the application will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. An order to this effect will be issued conjointly with this decision and reasons for decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mrs Penelope Archer versus Starick Services Incorporated was heard in the Fair Work Commission, focusing on an application to address breaches of employment laws involving a dismissal. Mrs Archer, the applicant, alleged that she was wrongfully dismissed by Starick Services, the respondent, and sought remedies for the contraventions of her employment rights. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether there were valid grounds for the dismissal and whether the employer had complied with the relevant employment laws.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Mrs Archer's dismissal was unfair, and if the employer had contravened the provisions of the Fair Work Act. This included assessing whether the dismissal was related to her protected industrial activities, and whether the employer had followed the correct procedural steps in terminating her employment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were any mitigating factors that could justify the dismissal under the circumstances.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties. The Commission found that Mrs Archer had indeed been dismissed without just cause or excuse, and that the employer had failed to adhere to the necessary procedural requirements. The Commission held that the dismissal was unfair and constituted a contravention of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Mrs Archer to her previous position and to pay her compensation for the loss of income and other related damages. The Commission's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the protection of employees' rights in the workplace.

Mrs Penelope Archer v Starick Services Incorporated

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established